0 votes
1 view
in Blockchain by (7k points)

I have been trying to extract input addresses from Namecoin transactions using some python code. This code works for regular transactions (where some namecoins are transferred from one address to another); however, this doesn't work on the transactions which have name operations, such as name_new. Here is some code:

raw = namecoind.getrawtransaction(tx_hash)
data = namecoind.decoderawtransaction(raw)

if 'vin' in data:
    inputs = data['vin']
    for input in inputs:
        input_value = input.get('value')

        if 'scriptSig' in input:
            script_sig_asm = str(input['scriptSig'].get('asm'))
            script_sig_parts = script_sig_asm.split(' ')
            if len(script_sig_parts) > 1 and (len(script_sig_parts[-1]) == 130
                or len(script_sig_parts[-1]) == 66):
                public_key_string = script_sig_parts[-1]
                try:
                    recipient_address = NamecoinPublicKey(public_key_string, verify=False).address()
                    print recipient_address
                except Exception, e:
                    print str(e)
                       return
            elif len(script_sig_parts) == 1:
                print "coinbase transaction input"
                return


    #print "Inputs:"

Running this code on a regular transaction works, i,e, we get the recipient address. But running this code for a name operation such as this shows that its a coinbase transaction, that is,

len(script_sig_parts) == 1

is True, and so the recipient_address is empty.

Can anybody point me how I can get the recipient address (in the above transaction, it is: NCAzVGKq8JrsETxAkgw3MsDPinAEPwsTfn) in a Namecoin transaction which involves name operation?

1 Answer

0 votes
by (14.5k points)

Your code should work fine on most name transactions. 

For instance, if you take 499a1e4c7bb1388347e1bd1142425949971eaf1fa2521af625006f4f49ce85c5 which happens to be the latest update of d/domob, the relevant script sig of the input is:

"scriptSig" : {
  "asm" : "3045022100c489ac648d08416d83d5e561d222049242242ded5f1c2bfd35ea48bb78b6a90f02203a28dee3d9473755fc2288bcaec9105e973e306071d28e69e593668c94b19fc101 04a85b7360b6b95459f7286111220f7a1eaef23bc9ced8a3b56cd57360374381bcabf7182941be400ccdfb761e26fa62d50b8911358aceb6aa30de9e8df5c46742",
  "hex" : "483045022100c489ac648d08416d83d5e561d222049242242ded5f1c2bfd35ea48bb78b6a90f02203a28dee3d9473755fc2288bcaec9105e973e306071d28e69e593668c94b19fc1014104a85b7360b6b95459f7286111220f7a1eaef23bc9ced8a3b56cd57360374381bcabf7182941be400ccdfb761e26fa62d50b8911358aceb6aa30de9e8df5c46742"
},
Your code has two pieces in the scriptsig (pubkey and signature). 
The previous output in your transaction is not pay-to-pubkeyhash. Rather it is pay-to-pubkey. Relevant output of the previous transaction 92457dfc2831bdb6439fc03e72dbe3908140d43ec410f4a7396e3d65f5ab605b:
"scriptPubKey" : {
  "asm" : "046a77fa46493d61985c1157a6e3e498b3b97c878c9c23e5b4729d354b574eb33a20c0483551308e2bd08295ce238e8ad09a7a2477732eb2e995a3e20455e9d137 OP_CHECKSIG",
  "hex" : "41046a77fa46493d61985c1157a6e3e498b3b97c878c9c23e5b4729d354b574eb33a20c0483551308e2bd08295ce238e8ad09a7a2477732eb2e995a3e20455e9d137ac",
  "reqSigs" : 1,
  "type" : "pubkey",
  "addresses" : [
    "NCAzVGKq8JrsETxAkgw3MsDPinAEPwsTfn"
  ]
}
Owing to the nature of the pay-to-pubkey script, the scriptsig does not contains only the signature now. 
While handling such rare cases, fetch the previous output and see how it works.
Welcome to Intellipaat Community. Get your technical queries answered by top developers !


Categories

...